Debate With Whiteflame On Vaccine Efficacy

PRO Shall Only Argue That Four Doses Of The Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine DOES Provide Better Immunity From COVID-19 Than Natural Immunity Over The Course Of A Healthy Human Being With No Comorbities's Lifetime.

CON Shall Only Argue That Four Doses Of The Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine DOES NOT Provide Better Immunity From COVID-19 Than Natural Immunity Over The Course Of A Healthy Human Being With No Comorbities's Lifetime.

* * *

DEFINITIONS:

All terms shall first be defined from Merriam Webster's Medical Dictionary available here:

And if Merriam Webster's Medical Dictionary cannot provide a definition, then Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary available at merriam-webster.com will be used for all other words.

Specific definitions for debate:

COVID-19: SARS-Coronavirus-2019 and all variants.

Natural Immunity: immunity from COVID-19 that does NOT come from vaccines. Does NOT include "partially-vaccinated" individuals. Only those with no COVID mRNA vaccine of ANY kind.

Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine: Only the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine that was approved by the FDA for Emergency Use (e.g. the one given EUA authorization by the FDA).

mRNA vaccine: Only the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine that was approved by the FDA for Emergency Use (e.g. the one given EUA authorization by the FDA).

* * *

RULES:

1. Burden of Proof is shared.

2. No Ignoratio Elenchis.

3. No trolls.

4. Forfeiting one round = auto-loss.

I would like you to set up the debate so I am properly the contender and not going first. Since you disagreed with me on my original debate with Intelligence_06, I would like you to state your case first.

If you think your case is completely airtight, then you have nothing to worry about by going first. After all, you do have a degree microbiology and are a medical researcher.

This looks somewhat distinct from the debate you've been having with Intelligence. I don't see a discrete topic written here, though if I'm gleaning it from the "STANCES" section, it is one of the following two topics:

The Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine provides better immunity than COVID-19 infection over the lifetime of those inoculated.

The Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine provides better immunity than that seen in uninoculated patients over the lifetime of those inoculated.

I think it should be clarified which one you're talking about. The debate is very different depending on which one you choose. Maybe your point is that you would defend both, but if that's the case, then we might as well only talk about the latter, since we both agree from the outset that COVID-19 often generates an immune response that provides substantial immunity against the virus. The harder one to defend, IMO, is the latter.

I'm leaving out the "comorbidities's" aspect because that's going to overcomplicate things. We're going to have to get into what makes something a comorbidity and somehow delineate entirely between those without and those with, and considering the number of potential comorbidities out there, how severe they are, and the open question as to whether all of them are even known for each patient being tracked throughout this pandemic, I think you're asking a lot to cleanly separate out those with no comorbidities.

Even so, I'm not fond of this as a topic. We're not talking about the lifetimes of the vast majority of these people because, frankly, the vast, vast majority of people in both camps are still alive. We could make comparisons based on a number of factors that we can know now, but you're essentially putting the onus on me to prove something that is unprovable given present data: that people who got this vaccines will, over their lifetime, showcase better immunity than those who were naturally infected with the virus. I can't do that. No one can. The reverse is true as well, but since it would be my burden to bear, the debate automatically favors you. We can talk about the persistence of immune response up to now and that's the limit. And if we are going to go into the future, then I think restricting the number of potential vaccine doses to 4 seems problematic. Presumably, there will be further development on these vaccines and specificity against emerging strains, so why don't those get to be a part of projections?

As for whether I'm going first, that is going to be a matter of how we frame the debate. Once we're done figuring out the topic, if it's framed in a way that places me as Pro, I'll take Pro. 

I am merely trying to debate:

Is there a way you'd prefer to set that up?

I specified no comorbidities because I don't want one of those stupid technicality debates or "well for people who are immuno-compromised the vaccine is better, therefore you're wrong." 

Most of my debates on here have been who can create the best loophole and drive a freight train through it and not on topic at all. So I am trying to specifically debate vaccine efficacy vs  natural immunity for a normal human being who is not immunocompromised. Because for immunocompromised the debate is entirely different. And they make up a small percentage of the population anyways.

Is there some way you'd arrange it? Because this vaccine is different from the smallpox vaccine, which worked by creating natural immunity, so it would be better to get the smallpox vaccine than get smallpox for most people. But mRNA vaccines work differently, so it is a legitimate debate now.

It doesn't even have to be lifetime. It can be 10 years or 20 years. I know vaccines have waning efficacy and it is possible to outlive your immunity to something.

For the sake of simplicity, then, the topic should be:

“On balance, people are better off vaccinating for COVID-19”

We would define vaccinating as you have to limit this discussion to that single vaccine. “On balance” focuses the debate on the average person who either does not have or is not aware of substantial comorbidities (I’m willing to define that to preclude myself from arguing that those with known comorbidies should get vaccinated). If you want to make this solely about protection from getting the virus, that would require some more specificity, but I’m unclear if that’s your aim.

In general, though, I’m also not a fan of so specifically defining what I can and cannot argue as you have in the OP. Generally, I’m not a fan of stating in absolute terms what either of our stances must be. I’m going to argue on this topic, but there has to be leeway for me to explore it fully. For example, I’m not OK with being told that any and all comorbidities are off the table just because people with obvious ones should clearly receive the vaccine. We’re not arguing about a single patient, we’re arguing about a population. The dynamics of that population matter to this debate.

Even 10 or 20 years is well beyond what we have data for now, but if you’re willing to give me leeway to argue beyond the 4 dose regimen (i.e. that we can expect other doses to come out and be inoculated later), then I’d consider it. 

Better: improve medical outcomes for

Specifically for COVID-19 illness?

I'm asking because the side effects of COVID-19 are worse than getting covid for most age groups. COVID, for instance, doesn't cause blindness or deafness or blood clots.

I had wanted to debate immunity, not dangerousness, since it is apparent from the data that, on balance, the COVID vaccine is not better than getting COVID.

See: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-06629-2

mRNA vaccine-induced antibodies more effective than natural immunity in neutralizing SARS-CoV-2 and its high affinity variants

OMG, P-C's last name isn't DeSantis is it?

Yes, specifically for COVID-19 illness. Think that’s rather obvious.

On this (assuming you left the word “vaccine” out of that first sentence where I think you did), we disagree and I’d be willing to include that in the debate.

Then what’s your threshold for “immunity”? Because if it’s not improving medical outcomes for patients, then it sounds like we have rather different views of how an immune response functions.

That study has no methodology section detailing how they measured the antibodies. Also, from what I can gather, it had a very small sample size of, like 500 total participants, and there is no information at all as to the length of time between vaccination and infection in this study.

The mere fact the authors did not reveal any of this data plainly is highly suspicious and not the best practices for epidemiological studies.

So you think that, on balance, the COVID vaccine is less dangerous than COVID?

Because I'd be willing to debate that

I mean… yeah? I think that’s a more difficult stance for you, but if you want to debate it, I’m down.

Ok. Now let's talk logistics.

I will be CON, you will be PRO.

The topic is:

On Balance: The COVID-19 Vaccine Is Less Dangerous Than COVID-19

I am suggesting the following Description:

STANCES:

PRO Shall Only Argue That The COVID-19 Vaccine IS Less Dangerous Than COVID-19

CON Shall Only Argue That The COVID-19 Vaccine IS NOT Less Dangerous Than COVID-19

* * *

DEFINITIONS:

All terms shall first be defined from Merriam Webster's Medical Dictionary available here:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/medical

And if Merriam Webster's Medical Dictionary cannot provide a definition, then Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary available at merriam-webster.com will be used for all other words.

Specific definitions for debate:

COVID-19: SARS-Coronavirus-2019 and all variants.

COVID-19 vaccine: The Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine

Dangerous: threatening to overall health.

* * *

RULES:

1. Burden of Proof is shared.

2. No Ignoratio Elenchis.

3. No trolls.

4. Forfeiting one round = auto-loss.

5. Sources in comments or bottom of argument

------------------

As far as constraints:

- 10,000 characters per argument

- One week per argument

- One week for voting

- 4-point voting

- 3 or 4 rounds

I want you to go first. So I think you'll have to set it up. 

Does this sound good to you?

So, that topic isn’t fully clear. Are we comparing what would happen to a random, largely healthy individual to determine which would affect them worse, or are we talking about populations? 

You have to be kidding me,  antibody serology tests check for the presence or level of specific antibodies in the blood. Antibodies are proteins that your immune system makes to fight foreign substances. These substances are often pathogens, (disease-causing germs) such as viruses and bacteria.If you download the report, it says:

Are the most inaccurate antibody tests out there:

They did not name the specific type of antibody test they used. There's different ones. But most of the ones used for COVID are abysmal and rife with false positives and other sensitivity problems. They are not reliable at all for studies due to the false positive rates. So for only 500 test cohorts, this is not a reliable study at all

Spare the condescending tone in your propaganda, please. It is apparent you feel the need to talk down on others to make yourself feel better.

Sigh. Would you like you have a crack at writing it? You seem to also know what you'd like to debate haha.

It honestly seems like it depends on where you want to go with it. If you want a general comparison of vaccination to a natural state, then what I recommended before:

“On balance, people are better off vaccinating for COVID-19.”

works just fine. It also works as a way to frame the benefits of vaccines against the dangers, though if you want something more direct on that front, maybe:

"On balance, mRNA vaccination against COVID-19 has been net beneficial."

If you'd rather focus on the specific issue of whether a sufficient immune response results to impede the virus, it can be more like this:

"On balance, the use of mRNA vaccinations to combat COVID-19 has been successful."

I'd be good with any of these, so it largely depends on where you want to place the emphasis/focus.

Assuming we define successful well, sure.

Guess I'd define it pretty straight up: "accomplishing its aim or purpose." So, we'd have to define what its aim/purpose is, which for me would be improving health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Stopping transmission of COVID-19 

I'll also note that defining "immunity" solely in the perfect sense is not going to be acceptable to me in any form. I've got reasons for that, but if your aim is to narrow the scope of what suffices as vaccine efficacy, it'll have to be wider than simply "stopping transmission of COVID-19."

Why don't we do this, then:

The Pfizer/Bio-N-Tech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Provides Superior Immunity To Natural Immunity Over The Course Of One Year With A Booster Shot Every 3 Months

I think that is specific enough. 

I'd nix extraneous details that you could define in the description and clarify the comparison a tad:

"The mRNA COVID-19 vaccine provides improved immune response to the virus vs. natural Immunity"

We could specify the vaccine in the description and, honestly, the booster inclusion just seems superfluous and also too theoretical, since (as far as I know), no one is receiving a vaccine booster every 3 months. I also would prefer that you didn't give me grounds to argue that, going way into the future, we will design more and more specific vaccines with a wider array of immune targets. We should be focusing on the effectiveness of what's been done, not concerning ourselves with a booster system that may or may not be implemented in the future.

As for the change I made, again, I think this is a difference of perception regarding what "immunity" means in this context, so if you'd like to change the way we use that term in the debate, it has to be clarified. As you wrote it, I'm unclear - "Superior Immunity" could be interpreted at least a couple of different ways. As I wrote it, this debate would encompass all immune responses to the virus.